Here's one man's view of the 08 Democratic Party field. I also want to say, up front, that there's no need to even worry about the Republic Party field; they will not win in 08.

Let's start with the top tier candidates:

Hillary Clinton: She *will* announce and she *could* could win - both the primary and the general election. She has the name ID and the capacity to raise more money than God. Yes, she's polarizing, but she'll win the women's vote and the minority vote and that will be enough to get her to White House. I also happen to think she'll make a good president. I also happen to think we can do better. Her history of triangulation is not a favorable trait. Neither is her still mostly undisavowed vote for the IWR. I can forgive her that, however, since, as a woman, she likely has to appear 'stronger' than men need to. Sexism, like racism, is alive and well. Odds to win the whole magilla: Very Good

John Kerry: He wants to run, but I'm not sure he will. While I honestly think every other 04 primary contestent is all the better and all the stronger in 08 for the experience, Kerry is the exception. He was badly damaged by the campaign and the baseless slurs and attacks, but, sad to say, it stuck. And fair or not, the attacks continue to this day and they continue to work. He may well have won in 04, and there's no doubt he would have made a great president, but its just not in the cards anymore. Odds to win the whole magilla: Poor

Barak Obama: Today's rock star will be tomorrow's old news. The media seem to be setting him up much as they did to Howard Dean in 04. Say what you will and believe what you will, he will not go far due entirely to a 'thin resume'. The upside is that he's young and **very** appealing. No matter what happens this go-round, he's got many years to campaign for the top job ... and I think he'll get it. But that won't be this cycle. Odds to win the whole magilla: Fair

Al Gore: This is the horse to beat. No doubt about it. If he decides to run, he will be President in January of 2009. Take that to the bank. Where Kerry is still carrying a lot of baggage from 04, President Al has totally changed his calculus. He has the resume to beat all resumes - 8 years in each house of Congress and 8 years in the halls of power. If you need bona fides, this guy's got 'em in spades. Further, he's not nearly as liberal as he is outspoken, and that's appealing to the masses and the base. He's shown he has the capacity to lead even when he's out of office and even when he was out of favor. If he wins that Academy Award, its all over but the balloon drop. And here's a tasty, albeit totally speculative, tidbit ..... remember when he endorsed Howard Dean early on? Was there a pact made back then? Unfortuantely, I believe him when he says he's not running. I also believe the door's open just a crack. Odds to win the whole magilla, should he choose to run: Beyond excellent.

John Edwards: I find him largely unscathed by the 04 cycle and his role in it. He's the same appealing guy now that he was then, but with more experience. I saw him on a recent Hardball episode and found him to be more confident, more widely spoken, more self-assured, more well-rounded. He also has the absolutely perfect first lady to be in Elizabeth. And we all know as sure as the sun will come up that he's running. Odds to win the whole magilla: Very Good

Second tier candidates with a real shot at the brass ring:

Joe Biden: While he's not my cup of tea - or espresso, or even flat soda - he's well spoken and very skilled in foreign policy. And make no mistake, foreign policy will trump domestic issues in 08. When Windy Joe gets wound up, he can deliver barn burner speeches. But the hair plugs and the still unforgotten/unforgiven plagarism thing is hanging over him. That and, well, he just doesn't wear well. Odds to win the whole magilla: Fair at best

Bill Richardson: Creds out the wazoo and a reasonable sounding way of speaking will carry him pretty far if he chooses to run. He's an Hispanic that even the xenophobes can support. His downside is that he's just not all that exciting. And he may be too conservative for the base. Odds to win the whole magilla: Fair to good

Wesley Clark: Yeah, I know - no name recognition outside the Internets. I see that as a plus. He'll appear to be coming on again and coming on strong. If Iraq is still the Mess in Potamia it is today - and there's no reason to think it won't be, or maybe even worse - then his stock goes up even more. Now, the other thing about him is his now-years-long gig on Fox Newz. He's maybe better known in oppostion households than he is to the Democratic base. Of all our possible candidates, he probably has the most cross-over appeal. No one can question his creads in foreign policy. And who is more qualified as Commander in Chief? His hardest task will be to win over the Democratic base. if he can do that, he can go all the way. Odds to win the whole magilla: Very Good to Excellent

Dennis Kucinich: I like Dennis. I really do. He'll bring to the 08 campaign what he brought to the 04 cycle - good debate and fresh ideas. But we all know, no matter how much we might like him, that he has no chance to break even 5%. Odds to win the whole magilla: Poor

The 'are you kidding me' tier:

That Guy From Alaska: Hahahahahahahaha.

Reverend Al: I don't think he'll bother this time. But if he does, we're in for hours of entertainment by what turns out to be one very smart man. I think he raised the debate stanbdards in 04 and would welcome his involvement in the 08 cycle. Say what you will about him and his history, he's a credible speaker on many issues. But does he have a chance? Nope. That snowball in Hell has a better chance.

Kathleen Sebelius: Her name even being on this list is rank speculation. There's not a hint that she's running. I don't think she will. And if she did, there's very loittle chance of her winning a single primary.

Janet Napolitano: Same calculus as for Gov. Sebelius.

Brian Schweitzer: He says he's not running and I think that will be the final outcome. Would he like to run? Probably. but let him finish a term first. For this cycle? Ain't happening.

Phil Bredeson: He'll never win over the base.

Mike Easley: Same as Bredeson, he'll never win over the base of the party.

Anyway, that's how I see things today. I don't think anything will change very much before late next year. by then the field will be pretty well sorted out and it will be a horse race. Right now, the horses ares till in the pasture, no matter **what** the media say.

And as for a sure fire winning team: Sticky Sez: Gore/Clark 08. That's not Stinky's personal favorite ticket, but it is the one that will win in a landslide.

86. "MR. VICE PRESIDENT GORE, IF YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AND...

DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO LEAD OTHERS TO VOTE FOR YOU AS WELL!"

If every Democrat and Independant were to say that out loud, repeatedly, maybe he'll run. He was personally hurt in 2000 and has made the defeat into a powerful positive force... I can understand why he doesn't want to go through that again.

SO SAY IT AND MEAN IT!!

"MR. VICE PRESIDENT GORE, IF YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AND DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO LEAD OTHERS TO VOTE FOR YOU AS WELL..."

"Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"

Diane Rehm: How would you react to that, General Clark, increasing troops now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a temporary measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

So, given the opportunity, he DOES NOT take that opportunity to say that he is against it. Why?

Later he says,

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages.

BUT LET'S BE CLEAR. I am NOT saying that Clark's position is to send more troops, and I never claimed that was Clark's position. WHAT I SAID WAS, it is easy to get that impression from what he said in the Diane Rehm interview. Easy for someone who doesn't follow every word out of Clark's mouth, anyway. I read the transcript, and I saw where ProSense got the impression, and I posted it, and got called a liar (not by you, thanks) for that statement. But I will say this - based on what he said on the Diane Rehm show, I would also not be going around telling people that Clark opposes adding more troops. Clearly, he agrees with Kerry that a political solution is more important to achieving success than strengthening troop levels. But I don't think he was clear at all in that interview that he opposes adding troops, and an uncharitable view would be that he seemed to be leaving the door open to later claim that he was for it. You know, Kerry gets knocked for "nuance", but it seems to me there is more nuance in that statement by Clark than I ever saw from Kerry. That's just my opinion though, ymmv.

(or let's be simple: can you post a simple statement by Clark - from THAT interview - where he simply states, "I am against increasing troop levels in Iraq"?)

Clark has definitely not called for troop increases. His stand is that troop numbers are secondary to Iraq politics, U.S. negotiations with Iraq's neighbors, tactics, and several other factors. It is hard to understand how that can be misconstrued as support for more troops.

I certainly am not going to infer Clark's position from what is posted on the front of his blog that was written by someone else - unless of course Clark adds a personal note saying, "I agree with every word in the above piece by <insert author>".

The poster seemed to be referring to what Clark stated on the Diane Rehm show. See my responses above in this subthread for why I think it can be taken the way ProSense took it.

ProSense may be incorrect. But I did not see any statement from Clark in the Diane Rehm show transcript where he stated unequivocally that he opposes the proposal to add troops. In fact, in that transcript he did say that it would "probably get some results on the ground" and later, "this mission in Iraq has been woefully short from the beginning, not to take out Saddam's military, but to do the follow-on job of taking care of the country and establishing authority and preventing civil disturbances and other things. From the beginning we've been short troops." And he said he welcomes Jack Keane's proposal, which earlier in the transcript is described as

a proposal for an increase in the size of the forces in Iraq that would be sustained actually and not temporary and also explaining the means by which that troop increase can be sustained, which of course includes a large increase in the overall size of American ground forces in both the Army and the Marines.

Now, I realize that a smart, reasonable person who is looking for a solution to a problem will "welcome" proposals offered from all corners, even those they might expect to disagree with. So it's perhaps reading a little too much into Clark's statement to think that he will support Keane's proposal after he reviews it. But, I hardly think you can be surprised when folks miss that nuance. And Clark could have expressed stronger reservations about sustained increased troop levels in Iraq, and he didn't. Why not? It seems he is not strongly against increasing troop levels for a sustained period, or he just would have come out and said it. But, that is only my interpretation.

I think Clark supporters who want to help other potential supporters understand Clark's position better, might do better to take a good read of this transcript and first understand why we think he said that he is for adding troops in Iraq, or at least not strenuously opposed.

10. I hope you're wrong on Kerry, but it doesn't matter much. Riding that bus til the wheels fall off

I'd change Biden to poor, personally. There's the plagarism thing. There's the long-winded, "tell a story that's only tenuously about the topic, starring me" thing. He's a perrenial candidate, and those are hard to take seriously. Plus, he announced way too early.

I have my doubts that he will be able to raise enough cash not to drop out early.

People thought Kerry was toast in December 2003. I seem to remember that the assessment was a bit off the mark.

I'm fairly sure that when the campaign starts off in earnest and people really start measuring up the candidates, the tired judgement that Kerry's presidential possibilities are "poor" will be all but forgotten.

Didn't pay attention to them in '04, won't care now - unless Kerry doesn't run. In that case, I will be looking for the strongest antidote to Hillary, and weighing that strength against how well I like the person's positions.

But, I think Kerry will run, and I think he will surprise people. Again. Because when it comes time to vote in the primaries, people are going to be looking at who they want as President, not who hired which consultant or has more money in the bank.

and maybe Clinton's, and maybe Edwards; I think you underestimate Obama, at least as VP (although I agree, he has plenty of time, and I think a lot of the media hype is because they like a storyline and they've decided "Clinton vs. Obama" makes a fun story for them).

Gore is absolutely prepared for the presidency, though -- no doubt about it. And I agree that if the country wants an excellent Commander in Chief, the General is unsurpassed.

I don't feel honor bound to vote any special way. I prefer to vote Democratic, but not if they insist on the same old same old crap of staying in Iraq while not staying in Iraq and using all these odd terms to confuse the issue.

I will vote for no one who still supports this illegal invasion of Iraq.

I will not vote for Hillary if she still uses Carville, Begala, or the likes of Mark Penn as her "people".

I will not vote for anyone I don't think is sincere.

I was loyal to a fault in 00, 02, 04...and I ain't got a damn thing to show for it but the House. That's enough for now...but that ain't gonna get us out of Iraq.

Too many Democrats want to stay and finish the job or win...even if they don't know WTF it means.

16. I think this is a pretty good analysis, but I don't think Clinton has much of a chance...

And I think Kucinich could do much better this time around with the war as unpopular as it is (although I admit his chances of winning the nomination are low, it is certainly not impossible). I will admit though I root for the underdog, and more often than not my underdog candidates do not do as well as I hope.

As far as Clinton goes, I don't think she stands a chance. She divides people too much, and not just outside the party but inside the party as well. She has virtually no support from the blogs, and blogs are playing a major role in elections now.

I think you are right on Gore though, if Gore runs he will be the one to beat. He will still be able to get the centrists, but his turn to the left since the last election will excite the base. He is the one candidate that can really unite the progressives with the conservative Democrats, and that will make him very difficult for anyone to beat.

folks like leaving out the all important C. Disagree though, about Obama. he can lay his hands on $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 by June without even rustling the hair on HRC's donor base. Black Hollywood was lined up like you would not believe to pledge money. This lady with a daytime TV show named, um, O something or other, has also pledged support. Clooney was in Darfur and along came Matt Damon that are Obama folks. Seriously, he is the player that rewrites the current calculus until, February where a little documentary may pick up an Oscar starring an elected president. Then ALL bets are off.

Clark has to have almost everything break his way if Gore doesn't jump in. Gore just dominates if he comes in and there is no two ways about it, and I say that as an avid Clarkie. Wes's creds will play as Bush is about to ensure that national security becomes the ultimate campaign issue for 2008. We will see...

somewhere (I was on a flight and can't recall the source) that some of HRC's donor base is crossing over and donating to Barack. I think he's got more of a substantial base in the groundswell behind him than many here realize (or maybe some are ignoring the reality of that to marginalize him).

I think a Gore/Obama ticket packs a punch and would love to see Gen. Clark as SOD or SOS.

No worries - SOS is a position he is well suited for as well, in fact, might actually utilize all the gifts he has to bring to the table. I have always visualized him in that sort of cabinet position where I think he would serve brilliantly.

This comes very close to my thinking with the exception that I think you overstate Hillary's chances a little bit. I place them at fair to good. Depending on the Repuke candidate, it could be poor. Think Chuck Hagel.

One thing to consider. The calculus (as Stinky terms it) is not carved in stone. This next year is going to be a wild and wooly ride. Just about anything can happen.

Of the bottom tier candidates, I see the women as having the best chance to break out. Sebelius and Napolitano could do better than one would think right now. I'd recommend that Stinky consider whether one of those two might be second on a Dem ticket.

Consider the possibilities.

Gore/Sebelius.Edwards/Napolitano.Or, how about this one: Clinton/Sebelius! That one just may work out. It would certainly shake things up.

There's gonna be a woman on the ticket this time. Bet on it.Best odds... Sebelius as Veep.

This claim is dead wrong: "Yes, she's polarizing, but she'll win the women's vote and the minority vote and that will be enough to get her to White House."

I can't begin to describe how wrong that is. Most of the fellow Democrats who've been most angrily opposed to Hillary that I've encountered, have been women-- especially young women. They're furious at Hillary for her Iraq War support and further belligerence, flag-burning and especially that bankruptcy bill, which really hurts women disproportionately. Minorities are similarly angry at Hillary for her support for corporate plutocrats and outsourcing.

IOW, Hillary does NOT have the women and minority vote in her bag, not even remotely. Operating on this belief in the primaries would have catastrophic consequences for us in the general election.

35. Regardless of what the polls say today, the odds of any sitting senator winning

the presidency are VERY slim.

Most who run don't win their party's nomination.

No sitting senator has won the presidency since JFK in 1960.

Of the 43 American presidents, only 2 or 3 elected were sitting senators. A few had been promoted from the senate to the vice presidency and then won the presidency.

It could happen (say, for instance, if both parties nominated sitting senators), but based on history, the odds of Hilary, Obama, Evan, Joe Biden, John McCain or any of the sitting senators winning the presidential election in 2008 are very slim.

For whatever reason, Americans don't seem to like to promote senators into the presidency.

One of the posters said her husband referred to H2S as "Stinky," because of the chemical compound (which I think smells like rotten eggs)!

The clown part was from a photograph of him as a little boy, looking extremely serious while dressed in a clown costume for Halloween. I said, "That is just SO YOU!" So, I dubbed him a clown. ("Yes, you DO look like a clown to me, actually.")

I have wanted to find that photo again for a long time!! If I ever do, I'm going to enlarge it and frame it.

You say, Wesley Clark: Yeah, I know - no name recognition outside the Internets. I see that as a plus. He'll appear to be coming on again and coming on strong. If Iraq is still the Mess in Potamia it is today - and there's no reason to think it won't be, or maybe even worse - then his stock goes up even more. Now, the other thing about him is his now-years-long gig on Fox Newz. He's maybe better known in oppostion households than he is to the Democratic base. Of all our possible candidates, he probably has the most cross-over appeal. No one can question his creads in foreign policy. And who is more qualified as Commander in Chief? His hardest task will be to win over the Democratic base. if he can do that, he can go all the way. Odds to win the whole magilla: Very Good to Excellent

Clark supporters are continuously miffed at the lack of coverage of this candidate, who many (including those who like Clark, but aren't ardent supporters) feel can flip any number of red to purple states, ensuring a Dem win in 2008. We constantly see the media ignoring his name, even when they report on blog supporters. There was the infamous time that Clark was handily winning a Kos poll and CNN reported that "I don't know" was coming in second and went onto name a handful of other candidate, never even MENTIONING that Clark was kicking everyone else's butt.

We write glowing reports of his appearances, Clark, himself, traveled CONSTANTLY to nearly every state in the union to help get Democrats elected, he was the most requested surrogate in the ever-elusive red states, including by Kerry in 2004, yet, nada, zilch, nothing.

How do you think we'll ever overcome this media blackout? Even when it's clear to anyone with half a brain that Clark has the vast majority of the net roots support, as evidenced by his either coming in first or second in nearly every poll, by how much he was requested to take the Dem message into rural areas in the 2006 campaigns, by the fact that he is supported by everyone from the moderate Oklahoma voter to the liberal Michael Moore/George McGovern voter to the wealthy Dem voter such as George Soros.

I really want to know because it's frustrating to no end.

I look at the media polls now as a gauge - a popularity contest - not as any real, hard numbers, but if we can't get the rank and file Democrat to hear his message because of the lack of media support, how the hell do we move him up into the top tier? His message is a good one, his experience and background are enough to flip undecides and his personal life would stand up to the most deafening media scrutiny: he's nearly perfect in-so-far as elect-ability - but NOT without a conduit for his message.

on DU and Kos and MyDD - or he comes in second behind Gore and only Gore. There was a small snippet of time late last summer where Feingold came in ahead of him on a few polls, but very few. So I'm not sure what net roots YOU'RE talking about.

I don't read Atrios or Digby, so I don't know about them, even though Digby, I believe, was a Clarkie last time around.

I haven't seen them. As for DU--I've been doing straw polling here just about every month since June, and Clark has never finished first in one of my polls. He does consistently finish second to Gore; usually by 20 percentage points or so. So, if DU's any indication, maybe you should have said "Clark has the vast majority of the net roots support if you exclude Gore."

If you can't provide any links or actual numbers, you're just talking out of your ass. Here's my November poll--it got the biggest sample of all the polls I've done, so is probably statistically most meaningful. I can link to the rest, too, if you want.

61. I guess the media would cover him more if he were more controversial .....

.... he's not flashy and he's not controversial. Also, he's a wonky kinda guy in some ways. He gives VERY complete answers and you need to study them to get what he *really* means (witness the endless misinterpretations and parsing of his every utterance right here on DU, including in this thread).

I also think, based solely on observation, that the media is not his friend. Just yesterday, as but one example, on Tucker Carlson's show, he was talking about some other candidate (I was only half listening, so can't relate the whole conversation) and how their message is muddled and mushy and not ready for prime time. Tucker said that it was like some "04 candidates who weren't **cough*cough*WesleyClark** ready". The slam was off topic to the conversation and totally gratuitous.

Maybe if Clark could go on O'Reiley's show and literally, not figuratively, kick him in the balls, he might get some coverage - at least on Olbermann's show.

But seriously, I think he gets no coverage because he's under contract to Fox. I suspect that, if he announces, they'll cut the contract, much as CNN did when he announced for the 04 cycle. Then he's got to get loud and controversial in opposition to anything and everything Republic. Think of an admix of Al Gore and Howard Dean. He also needs to be seen with a lot of the people he helped in the 06 cycle.

because one of the first things he said in 2003 when he announced he was running, was that he would act fast to restore the Fairness Doctrine and break up media monopolies. That was it. No more Corporate Press mentions of Clark.

McCain's now caught in a trap of his own making--the whole "double-down" idea belongs to him, and his worst political nightmare is that Bush will actually adopt it. 20,000 more troops won't do squat; even with 200,000 additional troops it's unlikely that the U.S. could stave off civil war in Iraq. Giuliani will NEVER get the nom, IMO--he's nowhere near ideologically pure enough for the fundies. So it's either McCain or somebody like Brownback, and, unless the Dem nomination goes seriously off the rails, you're right--we win in '08, pretty much no matter what.

Your points about Kerry are spot-on, too, though of course ProSense and others will accuse you of being a tool of the RW just for having uttered them. Like it or not, fair or not, true or not, the narrative on Kerry has been written, and it's not all that flattering. Maybe he can revise it, a la Gore, but it would be a Herculean task, and to date neither he nor his followers have come to grips, I don't think, with the depths of the voting public's general disinterest in Kerry as a second-time-around candidate.

I think you're right about Gore, too. Gore runs, Gore wins--whoever the hell his running mate is (almost). Clark would be fine, Obama would be fine, Edwards would be okay, even Biden would be okay. Hillary would get everybody's hackles up, I think.

59. I think the attacks come from all quarters .... and I don't get why ....

.... honestly, I don't understand the need for some to continue to attack Kerry. I get the RW hits. That's just pro forma politics. But the attacks from the elft side of the aisle are beyond me. Winners don't win by appearing directly petty or vindictive. That's why Il Dunce never directly attacks. That's why its the veep candidate who's the pit biull while the candidate is all sunshine and light.

When she attacked Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment and fell in line with the right wing.

As I posted in the Kerry forum, I had a random encounter with a cabdriver who brought that up as a reason he no longer likes Hillary - with no prompting from me, I had just said that she was my least favorite Dem. If I hadn't said what I did he probably wouldn't have felt safe to say what he did - but the fact he brought up her attack on Kerry, absolutely floored me. Maybe he hangs out on political blogs when he isn't cab-driving, but if not, well that is bad news for Hillary. As it should be.

While the media focuses almost obsessively on Clinton and Obama - much as they focused on Dean and Clark in '03 - Edwards is quietly working in the background.

Clinton right now has an aura of inevitability that, in a Dem primary, does more harm than good. Every effort is going to be focused on knocking her off that pedestal - and that pedestal isn't very stable right now. She's winning because people think she's winning. A crack in the armor here, a bump in the road there, and people start jumping ship.

Obama has high expectations placed on him that might be hard for any candidate to live up to. In some ways, he reminds me of Clark -- who I supported -- back in '03: His candidacy looks good on paper, his backstory is impressive, he can raise a lot of money, but when he actually gets into the race it's clear he's not quite ready. I could see Obama in the VP slot in '08, which would put him in prime position to run for the top spot either in '12 or '16.

What Edwards has right now that he didn't have in '08 is a clear field in the South. When Kerry surged in IA and NH, it killed Edwards' chances of putting up a strong fight in the South. What's more, he is a known quantity in Iowa. If he can win Iowa and place a strong second in New Hampshire, he can carry the battle into the South, where I couldn't see either Clinton or Obama beating him.

I qualify all this by saying that we're still a year out, folks. Few of us could have predicted Kerry's surge in January '04; who knows who might surge this time? Who knows who might leap into the race? This is just my perception based on what I'm seeing right now.

We can't rule out Gore yet. The reason he didn't run in 2004, if you'll recall, was because he didn't want to do a rematch. No such situation exists now.

Pact between Dean and Gore? Probably not. The two admire eachother and share a populist outlook (which is why I like them both). It was actually Gore who encouraged Dean to look at things other than the presidency--and ultimately his position as DNC chair.

Richardson has some baggage. He's my governor, and I like him very much, but he probably wouldn't win the general election.

Clark would probably get more coverage should he end his contract with Fox. What's in that contract? I'd like to hear more from General Clark, but I can't stand FAUX News.

87. I agree with your take on the potentials overall, with the exception of Kerry.

I think Kerry stands nearly as good a chance at winning the GE as Gore does. Nearly. And I'd much rather cast my vote in the GE for a Kerry/? ticket than I would for a Hillary/? ticket.

But Gore is the one. And I don't recall him saying definitely that he won't run. In fact, I think the last I heard him comment on it, he said he wasn't ruling it out. That tells me he's open to the idea, maybe even lining things up. However, I don't think an Academy Award would really have that much of an effect. He doesn't need it to win.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.